Attorney general says that Barronelle Stutzman violated a state consumer-protection law when she turned down business from a homosexual couple.

RICHMOND, Wash. — Since being sued for declining to use her flower-arranging talents to adorn a same-sex “wedding,” Barronelle Stutzman has seen her flower-shop business blossom.

Local community support for her 47-year-old shop, Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts, has been “absolutely fantastic,” Stutzman cheerfully told the Register. “We’ve had more walk-in traffic than ever. People have come in to order $100 bouquets and donate $50 for our legal expenses.”

The hullabaloo erupted last week, after Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit claiming that Stutzman, 68, violated a 2006 state consumer-protection law that says you can’t refuse to sell goods and services based on a person’s sexual orientation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has stepped in to represent the homosexual couple.

An ACLU letter to Arlene’s Flowers, dated April 10, makes three demands: It asks that Stutzman stop refusing to serve customers based on sexual orientation, publish an apology in the Tri-City Herald and donate $5,000 to the Vista Youth Center, advertised as a place for “gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning and allied youth.”

At this writing, the ACLU had received no response to the letter.

How the Conflict Arose

Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual who is planning a fall “wedding” with his male partner, had been Stutzman’s customer for nine years.

But when he asked her to do the flowers for his upcoming “wedding,” Stutzman declined, explaining she would have to pass because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ.”

According to Stutzman, the two hugged and parted respectfully.

But, later, the rejection began to gnaw at Ingersoll. “It really hurt because it was somebody I knew,” he told the Tri-City Herald. “We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls. There was never a question she’d be the one to do our flowers. She does amazing work.”

After Ingersoll and his partner posted their disappointment on Facebook, a whirlwind erupted, as people weighed in with often highly intense opinions on the matter.

The story gained global attention when it was picked up by the Huffington Post.

Seeing the story in the news, Washington’s attorney general got involved, suing Arlene’s Flowers for violating a consumer-protection law prohibits discriminating against a person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.

The attorney general’s website states that one consideration the state uses in selecting cases for legal action is “how likely our action will be in discouraging unfair practices in the future.”

The lawsuit would force Arlene’s Flowers to provide services to same-sex couples for their “weddings.” A $2,000 fine would be levied for each failure to do so.

Genderless ‘Marriage’ vs. Religious Freedom

But attorney Justin Bristol, who represents Stutzman, said the attorney general has his story wrong.

“Arlene’s Flowers didn’t refuse to sell flowers because of any customer’s sexual orientation. They’ve been selling flowers and floral arrangements to openly gay customers for many years,” Bristol said.

Rather, in this case, Arlene’s Flowers “respectfully declined to use its artistic talents to create floral arrangements for a gay ‘wedding’” on religious grounds.

Bristol said Stutzman’s religious rights are protected under the First Amendment and that she cannot be forced to use her talents to arrange flowers for a same-sex “wedding” any more than a musician can be forced to write a song.

In response, Attorney General Ferguson said, “I respect everyone’s ability to exercise their freedom of religion. As an individual, Ms. Stutzman is entitled to religious freedom and expression of her beliefs. However, as a business owner, she must follow Washington state law, which prohibits discrimination in the marketplace — including on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation.”

ACLU communications director Doug Honig told the Register, “If a business open to the general public sells goods to heterosexual couples for weddings, under state law it must sell goods to a gay couple. Religious views don’t give business owners a free pass to discriminate.”

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington State linked the current situation to Washington voters’ approval of a referendum last November that redefined “marriage” as being between two “persons” rather than between a man and a woman.

“Now that the law says marriage is genderless,” Backholm observed, “those who think otherwise are much more likely to be confronted with the Hobbesian choice to conform or be punished.”

Religious Liberty Redefined?

Now that the definition of marriage has been changed in the state of Washington, Backholm said, the definition of religious liberty is also being redefined.

“The reason why many of the Founding Fathers of this country left Europe was because they did not want to have a religious or philosophical litmus test for engaging in civil society,” Backholm said. “This new crew has the idea that religious freedom exists within the four walls of the church but once you leave you abide by state dogma. That’s precisely what our country was founded in opposition to.”

Backholm urged Washington residents “to recognize the seriousness of the attorney general of our state initiating a lawsuit against a small-business owner who has a position he personally does not agree with, which leads her to make a decision with her business that is different than the one he would make. It’s totalitarian.”

Backholm’s Family Policy Institute has set up an Arlene’s Flowers Defense Fund on its website to receive donations for Stutzman’s legal expenses.

Other pro-family organizations are also expressing support for Stutzman’s right to provide her commercial services in accordance with her own religious beliefs.

Family Research Council's president, Tony Perkins, noted that marriage is more than “just about two people who love each other.” He said that “it’s also about the florists, the bakers, the candlestick makers and everyone else the left wants to force to endorse their relationship.”

“If the state of Washington forces the owners of Arlene’s to compromise their religious values and espouse the state’s views,” he said, “the state is in clear violation of both the U.S. and state constitutional guarantees of not only freedom of religious exercise (which includes the freedom to abstain from activity in violation of conscience), but the guarantees of free expression as well.”

Said Bristol, “The state cannot compel someone to advocate a particular position on a controversial moral issue.”

Meanwhile, Stutzman stands calmly in the eye of the storm, trusting in God to bring good out of the chaotic situation.

“Good always comes with bad,” she said cheerfully. “I’m thrilled to see what God is going to do next.”

Comments

To claim that Ms. Stutzman is not discriminating against the couple because they are gay, but because they are gay getting married is so ridiculous as to cause her supporters to lose any creditability they may of had. It is similar to the claim ” I’m not racist. I don’t hate the man because he a is negro, I hate him because he is black” And the church wonders why so many are abandoning the hatered that was once known as the christian religion. And just to point out to you folks that keep saying she has a “right” to deny service. You really need to check out Washington State law. She clearly is in Violation since 2006.

RCW 49.60.030

Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights

Oh, and Your By-line is wrong..It is Richland WA. NOT Richmond

Posted by Joanp62 on Thursday, Jun 13, 2013 11:02 AM (EST):

A little angry, aren’t we? This shop owner had these men as clients in the past. She did not refuse them. Until asked to provide flowers for their wedding. She had every right to refuse - as she would have had the right to refuse to provide flowers for a KKK event, or Nazi Party event. Right?

If Angry Gay American owned a catering business and a conservative Christian group wanted you to cater their event, would you do it?

Posted by Gay American on Wednesday, Jun 12, 2013 8:36 AM (EST):

guess NONE of you nitwits KNOW THE LAW do u? Discrimination is discrimination..period! Your Voodoo has NOTHING to do with Commerce,and states laws regarding commerce….its no wonder I NO LONGER have anything to do with religion….you prove stupidity is alive and well and thrives in all of you.

Posted by Anony on Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:05 PM (EST):

Easy answer to this problem: The florist should have given him a price he could refuse.

Posted by Joanp62 on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 12:31 PM (EST):

Catholic Nurse you may be catechized, but you were either catechized poorly as many of us were in past decades, or you believe that you know better than Our Lord and His Church. Why don’t you learn what the Church says about itself and then decide where you stand? For example, the Church claims to be the One, True Church that has the fullness of Christ’s Truth. She claims to be both human and divine and that the Holy Spirit guides the bishops in union with the Pope when teaching on matters of faith and morals so she cannot err in those matters and these teachings MUST be assented to by ALL the faithful (Lumen Gentium #25) These teachings are NOT man-made, but come from God alone, through the Holy Spirit.

There-that is what the Church claims. It is not our opinion, it is a fact. What is an embarrassment are Catholics like you who are so full of pride and arrogance, who either don’t know much Church history, or prefer to get your info from anti-Catholic sources. If you do not agree with the Church’s claims, then I’m sure there’s an Episcopalian Church near you.

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, Apr 26, 2013 7:50 PM (EST):

The florist has every right to follow his religious beliefs. If the homosexuals don’t like it. Tough. Go find someone else to do your wedding

Posted by Tom Perna on Friday, Apr 26, 2013 2:35 PM (EST):

The mere fact that her business has blossomed proves that even in a blue state like Washington people oppose “same-sex marriage” and stand with her on this topic. I think I read recently that only 3% of the population claims to be homosexual…3%!! If you listen to the state-run media, you would think it’s 60%. This is all part of the tyranny that wants to run this country right into the ground. We must stand up and fight this philosophy in the public square as soldiers for Christ.

One more point to Catholic Nurse - With all respect and charity, what are you talking about?! You may be “catechized” but catechized poorly. Most of your statements about the teachings of the Catholic Church are from a person who really has no understanding what they are speaking on. You need a good lesson in papal authority which began with Christ himself (read Mt 16:13-20) and organically developed over the centuries, you need help understanding apostolic succession, and you need a good lesson on the Sacred Scriptures. There are two Commandments that speak on “sexuality” - number 6 and number 9. Christ also spoke about marriage in Matthew 19. Furthermore, as Catholics, we don’t just focus on the Scriptures alone (sola scriptura), but we also use Sacred Tradition. These two form the Deposit of Faith. This goes back to Apostles and the Early Church Fathers. Feel free to find my blog for further discussion.

Posted by Lorenzo on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 7:37 PM (EST):

To cafeteria catholic nurse
The menu is written in stone. Nothing you complain about is going to change let alone changed by you. Enroll yourself in a solid RCIA program . It’s the way to be professional.

Posted by A Catholic Nurse on Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 11:01 PM (EST):

The 2 000 years of teachings were HUMAN MADE. There is no “teaching” that being gay is a sin and that it is wrong. People have adopted that view and passed it on generation to generation. Just as women not being able to vote, interracial marriages being illegal, and so many other examples of marginalization and horrid treatment of our own kind. Please, OPEN your mind - God gave us brains to use them (and we should use them productively). Our brains allow us the ability to think critically, question and make decisions that are right and just for the greater good. The more boxed in you get with close minded religion, the opposite you are actually doing of what Jesus would have expected of us. There is reference to the corruption of the major Churches in the world in the Bible - and I’m sad to say but they are as corrupt as they come. Power driven, man-made rules that have become so disconnected. And I for someone who attended church and Catholic school my entire life - trust me, I am as “catechized” as they come. The difference is, I’ve read between the lines - and questioned many moral issues, and issues within the Catholic faith (and I’m definitely not the first one to do so). If you are in business to serve the public - you are obligated to do so. If I had something against gay people should I refuse treating them in the emergency room? Give me a break. If I really bring it down to living life based on the Bible - the 10 Commandments have no reference to sexuality. But you close-minded Christians can blab all you want - gay marriage is for the most part supported, and more than likely in the next 50 years or so this will be a thing of the past - just like people who protested against interracial marriage some 40 years ago. I would just like to thank God for allowing me to be an open minded Christian - but I will admit, I’m embarrassed and ashamed of the behaviours of some Catholics/Christians. But that’s not my place to judge - right?

Posted by Jane on Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 8:56 AM (EST):

Hypothetical:

A member of a white supremacist group walks in and asks a black florist to do an artistic design every week for the group’s headquarters.

Should he refuse on moral grounds?

Posted by Cyril on Friday, Apr 19, 2013 7:38 PM (EST):

Dear Catholic Nurse, With all due respect, it seems that you have not been well catechized. It would also appear that you have not analyzed this issue in sufficient depth. You are indignant because you perceive other Catholics to be judging, as well as picking and choosing what doctrines to believe. Again, with sincere respect, who is doing the picking and choosing? You are dissenting from the magisterial teachings of your own church. The bishops and even our pope have been unequivocal on the matter of same sex marriage. Now, unless you’re more Catholic than the pope, how can you openly dissent from 2,000 years of church teaching and then complain that others are picking and choosing what to believe? Your thinking is based on sentimentality, not reason. Even the business about judging won’t stand up to a few moments of scrutiny. Jesus himself called the Pharisees “Whitewashed tombs” (Matt 23:27) and, after rescuing the woman caught in adultery, told her to “go and sin no more.” He had compassion on her (an act of love), but he also told her the truth for the sake of her soul (another act of love). Christ is our model, no? Aren’t we supposed to follow his example? When one reads the gospels in their entirety, not just isolated verses removed from their context, it becomes patently clear that Jesus was not saying that we could not judge. What he was saying was that we should not be quick to judge, that we should not judge in haste, and that we should examine our own selves before we judge others. Also that we should temper our judgment with mercy and compassion. We’re all humans. We’ve all fallen short and judged others prematurely. But is that what’s going on here? I can’t possibly see how it is. The woman did not refuse her services because of her customers’ sexual orientation. The fact that she had served them for years while knowing full well that they were gay proves that she was not discriminating against them because of who they were. She refused her services because she felt she could not in good conscience cater to their wedding (something they were doing). There is a huge difference there that you and many other people are ignoring. Conscience, in my opinion, is a sacred thing, and we should respect the conscience of others whether we agree with them or not. If a pharmacist believes dispensing the pill is immoral, then he should not be required by law to dispense it. (His employer, I think, should have that right since employers should have the right to set their own policies.) If a nurse objects to abortion, she or he should not be required by law to participate in one. Period. If a photographer is asked by the KKK to shoot pictures of their 75th anniversary celebration, that photographer should have the right to say no without legal repercussion. And if those gay men were photographers and the florist asked them to shoot her wedding, which would take place at a fundamentalist Baptist church where the preacher would be ranting about homosexuality, they likewise should have the right to decline without legal repercussion. Conscience is sacred and must be respected.

Posted by GSmith on Friday, Apr 19, 2013 5:55 AM (EST):

Just as a customer is not legally obliged to give his custom to a particular retailer, so also a retailer is not legally obliged to accept the custom of a particular customer.
What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and it is this that makes the current ‘non-discrimination’ law unconstitutional and illegal. Ms Stutzman can safely ignore any legal process that is designed to compel her to obey an unconstitutional diktat.

Posted by Anony on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 11:23 PM (EST):

Would someone please explain to me why anyone would want to confer the sacrament of marriage on two men having anal sex? Seems to me that is a dirty disease spereading activity that is being conveniently forgotten, just like we have forgotten that all those dead fetuses from abortions were actually people. The fact that most people don’t bother thinking too hard anymore is the reason we are even having this assanine discussion. Expect more of this as time goes by.

Posted by Pat Maynard on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 9:44 PM (EST):

I support this upstanding Christian woman, and her right to refuse any type of order she chooses. She did not discriminate against any person—she refused a specific type of order. She is COMPLETELY within her rights.

It’s very important that we support this woman as she is swarmed by the AG, the ACLU, and the liberal mob; and that she not back down.

Posted by A Catholic Nurse on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 9:01 PM (EST):

As a born and raised Roman Catholic I thank GOD that he gave me the ability to open my damn mind. This woman had no right to refuse service based on her clients sexuality. Give me a break people - read between the lines in the Bible (which by the way, has been very “lost” in translation, and was written by humans). I’m sick of my fellow Catholics and Christians picking and choosing what is appropriate and inappropriate. My parents divorced when I was a teenager - does that mean I should be counting on them going to hell now? Focus on living a good life, without judging, hurting, or insulting others. You all think that being gay is a sin and that you’re not judging/insulting when in fact you ARE. You are the reason that children are being bullied in elementary and high schools. We should as the Catholic faith become more TOLERANT and start teaching TOLERANCE. Get over your “moral” views - there is nothing immoral on two people who care about each other being legally entitled to the same rights that you are entitled too. Why does there have to be any question or rebuttal to any issue surrounding equality? We’re talking about human emotion here - the capability to care and love. It doesn’t matter what gender you have that care/compassion for. I’m a very proud RN - and do you think it’s OK for me to deny taking care of you strictly because of my close minded beliefs about an issue that clearly needs to end? I was raised Catholic, and went into a profession that encompasses a lot of compassion and caring - for people from all walks of life. Maybe more nurses need to run the country - if just everyone had a bit more care and compassion we wouldn’t be debating the issue of equality anymore. It’s pretty depressing what our race has come too. God is surely disappointed - and you all know Jesus wouldn’t stand for any of this behaviour.

Posted by Juliann on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 5:16 PM (EST):

The AG said: “As an individual, Ms. Stutzman is entitled to religious freedom and expression of her beliefs. However, as a business owner, she must follow Washington state law…”

Does this mean that Christians are being demoted to second class citizens who can no longer run businesses? Isn’t that the type of persecution that brought our founders to this country in the first place? What good are my rights to freedom of religion if I cannot operate a business or live the life I want because of that same religion? That is not freedom.

The florist shop owner clearly was nice to the man - She did business with him for many years. She is religiously opposed to homosexual practice, though, and she should be able to refuse to support the celebration of that which she is religiously opposed to. She is discriminating against the wedding itself - not the man getting married. I think that is a key distinction.

Posted by Cyril on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 4:14 PM (EST):

Nice try, Jerry, but your feigned outrage at our impiety isn’t going to shut us up. You know good and well that you don’t believe half the baloney that you wrote. (Come on, man, we believe in turning the other cheek; therefore we’re going to sit still and keep our mouths shut when someone spreads misinformation about us? Give me a break!) You should be proud of us. After all, it was your hero Nietzsche who said that Christianity was not worthy of respect because it was too meek and passive. Why, then, would you take umbrage because we adopted a more vocal stance? Speaking of great philosophers (not that I think Nietzsche was one), you should heed the wisdom of David Hume, who, though he was an arch-skeptic, had the intellectual honesty to admit that all secular moralizing was poppycock. He had the guts to admit that it is logically impossible for men to get from “is” to “ought,” a lesson you apparently haven’t learned since you insist on moralizing in a universe without God. If there is no “granny” in the sky, on what rational grounds would you think we (the “is”) are morally obligated (the “ought”) to respect you? You are telling us how we ought to behave, and chastising us for not behaving that way, but you offer no cogent reasons for why we ought to follow your code of conduct (other than “This is America. Get with the program”). I assume you have some education. Do a simple thought experiment and follow it through to its rational conclusion: Assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and there is no God. We Christians—and all theists—are delusional idiots. OK, in that case there is no moral law, for there is no lawgiver. There is only what legal theorists refer to as “positive” (man made) law, which humans mutually assent to for what they perceive to be a common good. To make a long philosophical story short, then, there are no absolute morals. There is no “right” and no “wrong.” There is, as Hume acknowledged, only desire: “I desire that you respect me. I desire that you not harm me or steal from me or swindle me.” Remember, there is no God, so there is no ultimate law except the law of Darwin. And do you really want the law of Darwin to rule our world? Continue the thought experiment: How rational would it be for the gazelle to demand of the lion, “You should not devour me. It would be wrong, unethical of you to do so. You should respect my right to live in peace”? Well, Jerry, if there ain’t no God, then you and I are nothing more than animals, and it would be patent nonsense for one of us to tell the other what he ought or ought not do. But that’s what you are trying to do, Jerry. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You don’t want God, but you do want a natural world that is governed by moral codes—your moral codes, the ones that tickle your ears and allow you to pursue all the pleasures your flesh desires without consequence. Now, I may disagree with the moral code of a Muslim or a Hindu, but I at least respect the fact that they have one since they believe their moral codes to be grounded in a transcendent lawgiver. My dispute with them is not whether there exists a moral law but in how they interpret it and in their understanding of the ontology of the one who created the natural law. I cannot, however, respect the moral code of one who on the one hand says, “There is no God; you and I are just glorified animals with bigger brains” but on the other hand says, “Oh, by the way, you should respect my sexual preference and the way I live my life.” Again, you can’t have your cake and eat it to without drawing arbitrary lines. In closing, please note that I am *not* arguing that atheists cannot be good people and live moral lives. (That is a red herring militant secularists often toss in the ring to confuse people.) I am also “not” attacking atheists, many of whom I respect. What I am arguing, Jerry, is that one cannot say consistently, “I do not believe in God, but I do believe in objective right and wrong.” And that is precisely the sum and substance of what you have said. Think about it, Jerry.

Posted by Dixibehr on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 3:38 PM (EST):

\\Regardless of current PC, anyone in business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.||

Not according to the civil rights legislation of the 60’s, which were passed NOT under Obama, but under Lyndon Johnson, and were drafted during the administration of John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic president.

Posted by Dominic on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 11:56 AM (EST):

Jerry, it seems that you might have a difficulty understanding that the law of God trumps state law. Christ is the King, not Obama. Many Christians were murdered in the early Roman period because they followed Christ and not Caesar. Caesar mistakenly believed that by persecuting some zealous Christians, he would cause all Christians to obey him. He was wrong. What happened instead was the martyrs willingness to accept a brutal death increased everyone’s faith. Eventually, due to the martyrs, the Church was strengthened to the point that Popes crowned Kings. Jerry, let’s pray together that the Church is once again above the state and Christ is once again King. Viva Christo Rey!

Posted by John Madison on Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 11:46 AM (EST):

“Again, may that old christian granny either submit to the American principle of equal protection under the law (that also protects her), or else have her business shut down and you can take care of her.”

Submit? Never. Regardless of current PC, anyone in business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. I’m in business. You cannot force me to sell to anyone. You talk of making granny submit and claim that her refusal to submit is an attack on you.

Find a cause worthy of such vitriol. Religious, straight people want to be left in peace and desire to leave you in peace. You have the identical rights that we do. And you deserve those rights, no less. But, no more.

Posted by John Madison on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 8:26 PM (EST):

The road to Hell is paved with ACLU briefs.

Posted by Jerry on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 7:50 PM (EST):

Oh, my, such vitriol from some of you “christians.” You’re all mad now because your religion (and I imagine that most of you who attacked me are catholics because this is a catholic website) says that you’re suppose to denigrate and discriminate against people who don’t follow your religion.

Well, tough tooties. We’ve had to put up with your kind, including now who call us “disordered.” Yeah, a bunch of people that believe that a god turned himself into a pigeon to impregnate a virgin so it could turn itself into a magic baby that turned into a zombie, and the laws of our wonderfully secular America should bend to that. Yeah, you believe in that, but I’m “disordered.”

You can believe in that. I’ll fight for your right to do so. But when you say that I can’t receive the benefits of a civil contract because of your religion, I’ll belittle your religion into the ground and make you all p*ssy about it and have fun doing so. I’ll defend your right to believe in your gods and goddesses and your performing magical rituals to appease them. But tell me what I can and can’t do in our secular America (love it or leave it, to all of you - Saudi Arabia is waiting for you), I’ll snap your bras.

Just for your information, I support the lawsuits against Obamacare that is trying to force your kind to pay for contraception because it goes against your religion. I think not using contraceptives wisely is stupid. However, I also know that contraceptives are not necessary for anyone’s health care (unless it specifically is used, such as when the pill is effective regarding such things as unnusual menstrual cycles, et. al.) because not having sex won’t harm anyone. So I support you there.

But who I decide to marry (not that I ever will personally - I enjoy bachlorhood) should not be based upon what you think your god (actually gods, since none of you can decide what your specific god mandates, and that includes you catholics) wants. You deal with your god and keep it out of my life. If you don’t want to, then you can feel the power of America that holds that all are equal under the law.

Again, may that old christian granny either submit to the American principle of equal protection under the law (that also protects her), or else have her business shut down and you can take care of her.

And one last thing: I’ve been attacked by several of you catholic christians. What happened to turning the other cheek that your Jesus said you’re suppose to do? Or is that no longer a part of your bible or catechism or EWTN broadcast or whatever? As your bible says, by your fruits you shall know them and quite obviously several of you are very rotten. Thank you for convincing me that what you believe is a pile of manure. Please spread some more of it around.

Okay, let more attacks begin. Show how you practice your religion.

Posted by Dixibehr on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 4:42 PM (EST):

\\Were you a gay florist would you provide flowers for a banquet honoring a Catholic marriage protection activist?\\

In Washington State, one would have to do so because of the law.

Laws say what they say.

The same laws that say one cannot refuse service because of sexual orientation, which prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, ALSO say that one cannot refuse service because of religion, which likewise prohibit discrimination against Catholics.

If we want to be protected by the law, we must extend the protection of the law to EVERYONE.

Posted by Dan on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 2:57 PM (EST):

To the homosexually-disturbed people who are pounding their smoking keyboards and sending comments here:

Yawn.

Posted by poetcomic1 on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 2:47 PM (EST):

Jerry -
Were you a gay florist would you provide flowers for a banquet honoring a Catholic marriage protection activist?

Posted by Andy on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 1:45 PM (EST):

“Meanwhile, Stutzman stands calmly in the eye of the storm . . .” This is terrible writing! Are there no editors at the NCR? Bad writing notwithstanding . . . I hope Stutzman has also refused to provide flower arrangements to heterosexual couples celebrating their moving in together, some kind of “shacking up” celebration. I doubt it’s come up, but I’m assuming she would also refuse to provide flowers for a brother and sister who have decided to marry, or an adulterous couple celebrating their love affair. I hope Stutzman would not be required to provide flowers for every event she found offensive.

Posted by YF on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 12:59 PM (EST):

What this article fails to mention is that Arlene’s has gained new supporters en masse, and also that there’s been many openly gay individuals who’ve voiced their support of Baronelle’s right to refuse to decorate this wedding.
It’s refreshing to see such a wave of support from those who recognize that this is just another freedom we are in grave risk of losing.
It’s a sad day when an AG believes he can force his beliefs onto the public and that the public has to accept those beliefs. As mentioned in the article, it’s “conform or be sued” and that’s far from how this country was founded!
Where is the religious freedom this country was founded upon now?

Posted by Julie on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 12:35 PM (EST):

This controversy is just one symptom of a deeper tragedy. We also see it in those who “disagree” (violate) the Church’s teachings on conjugal relations outside of marriage, contraception, abortion, taking Holy Communion without first receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and so on. It appears that too many people who identify as Christians, including Catholics, have no idea what redemption through Jesus Christ is all about. It is about *theosis*. (There is another word for it, but I prefer the Greek because it cannot be confused with the Western concept of “magic”.) It is central to a properly-ordered Christian life, yet how many Christians have heard the term, much less understand it? And if Christians do not understand it, how can they be adequately prepared to participate in evangelization? Dissenters and the secular world see Church teaching, and Christianity in general, as rules meant to impede their fulfillment, not as the means to be *transformed in Christ*. I pray the Holy Spirit reignites a proper understanding of theosis throughout the Church. Yes, we must vigorously defend our right to religious freedom, but we must first understand what it is for. Understanding is unlikely to prevent lawsuits like this one, but it will strengthen Christian resolve and bear witness to the world, especially to those whom Christ Jesus is still calling.

Posted by poetcomic1 on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 10:34 AM (EST):

Most interesting of all? Those dear, long-time homosexual customers who were so sweet, loving and close to the elderly florist - but when they are ‘hurt’ turn on her to DESTROY her utterly with a shocking viciousness. Lord, I know the type! They walk around in a cloud of self-love “I am a good, decent, loving human being! I spread sunshine!” blah blah blah. Makes your blood run cold.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 10:15 AM (EST):

Washington State’s discriminating against those who believe marriage is beween more than 2 persons.If gender’s arbitrary, so are the number of partners.By default, limiting marriage partners punishes Muslim & fundamentalist Mormon families, among others.Many Muslims have to live “in the closet” as a family in the US, passing off multiple wives as sisters-in-law.I’m not sure why a much smaller, special interest group is afforded the right to marry but others are not.

Posted by Cyril on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 8:47 AM (EST):

Jerry, your post says it all: As far as you are concerned, this is payback time. (Ah, yes, we’re in control now…let’s have no mercy on those dirty Christians who called us sinners for 2,000 years!) How kind and charitable of you! Because public opinion has changed, you now see yourself as a true American and anyone who disagrees as someone less who either needs to get with your program or get out of dodge. Who is the intolerant one? I suggest you read Orwell’s classic Animal Farm for a prophetic glimpse into what happens when power differentials change: Obviously, everybody is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Posted by Bob on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 8:00 AM (EST):

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.” – from “Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons” a 2003 document approved by John Paul II.
Our choices are clear.

Posted by GSmith on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 6:17 AM (EST):

If Ms Stutzman had been really smart, she would have offered to send flowers, free of charge, to Mr Ingersoll’s funeral, in lieu of his ‘wedding’. That would have been an offer that he could hardly refuse.
In view of the fact that Mr Ingersoll proposes to continue in a life-style that is not conducive to good health, to say the least, Ms Stutzman would not have had to wait long to make good on her generous offer.

Posted by Edward on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 2:32 AM (EST):

And BTW, the NCR using quotes around the word “wedding” is childish, especially for a so-called “christian” publication. Grow up.

Posted by Edward on Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 2:29 AM (EST):

Jerry, you are my hero! Worship how you like in your private life, but if you’re going to run a PUBLIC business like a florist, you can’t pick and choose your customers. Gay money is just as green as straight money, and I’ve never been to a church that wasn’t more than happy to take my Gay money when the basket was passed. Luckily, this kind of silly, outdated discrimination, supposedly done in the name of Jesus, is quickly going out of style.

Posted by enness on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 11:48 PM (EST):

Jerry sounds out for vengeance, for every wrong in history, real or perceived…if it runs people like Stutzman out of a living, that’s collateral damage, I guess.

Posted by enness on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 11:41 PM (EST):

“By the way, I have a friend who’s a Catholic priest. He went to a florist for some event and the florist was one of those fundie bible types and said his religion wouldn’t allow him to cater to a Catholic church because it was “pagan” and not Christian. My friend contacted government authorities (as he should) and brought the heavy hand of the law down on this bible thumper.”
-
Way to take the high road, I’d say; I’m sure that threatening to sue the pants off somebody is a great way to convince them you’re a genuine Christian. But really, who cares? What does that have to do with anyone else?

Posted by enness on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 11:37 PM (EST):

“No one is telling her she can’t appease her god in her private life - we’ll support her in that. When she wants to take it into the public realm…”
-
This is what nobody seems to get: that is a completely false distinction. I’m Catholic all the time, not just for an hour on Sunday. I can’t split myself in two. Can you please get that through your head?
-
“she can’t use the excuse that her god won’t let her do business with people she doesn’t like”
-
It has nothing to do with personal like or dislike, and nothing to do with orientation. Please get that through your head as well, you and the broken-record attorney general. I don’t do same-sex weddings (and most of the time nobody even needs to know that). You want a birthday party or fancy dinner, no problem, I don’t care. I would feel the same way if, for example, it came to my attention that it was a marriage of convenience just in order to get something—no thanks, I can’t condone that.

Posted by Skywalker on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 11:35 PM (EST):

“By the way, I have a friend who’s a Catholic priest. He went to a florist for some event and the florist was one of those fundie bible types and said his religion wouldn’t allow him to cater to a Catholic church because it was “pagan” and not Christian. My friend contacted government authorities (as he should) and brought the heavy hand of the law down on this bible thumper. When the florist found out that, according to state and federal law, he would either have to fill the order or lose his business, he caved. Oh, my, was he being “persecuted?” He was taught a lesson in American ideals. This “lady” needs to be taught the same lesson.”
.
Yeah, right. First, to think that you’d be friends with a Catholic priest is unlikely. Second, what a convenient anecdote, given the content of this article. Is there a bridge you’d like to sell us, too?

Posted by ohio on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 11:22 PM (EST):

Statements like those from Jerry are so hatefully anti-Catholic, why is NCRegister not deleting them? Please, some of us don’t come to the site to expect hateful vitriol. Jerry, so you’re admitting that the Homosexual community has become tyrannical? And your proud of it? BTW, Homosexuality will always be a sin/evil no matter what man-made laws say. God’s law that Jesus came to fulfill is the only one that counts. Please repent of your sin (participation &/or promotion of Homosexuality) at the Confessional & turn away from sin & into the arms of Jesus.

Posted by Another Robert on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 10:56 PM (EST):

Jerry, this lady believes homosexual marriage is wrong. Maybe you are so angry about that because in your heart of hearts you know that it is too…. and when she’s been berated and persecuted, arrested and thrown into a paddy wagon, name spread all over, job taken away, career ruined, and home lost, how will you be better off? She will still know its wrong. And so will you.

Posted by Ronald on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 8:58 PM (EST):

Shop-owners should be free to decide whether they will sell an item to anyone. It is their own money, so why should they be forced to accept everyone as a customer? This has nothing to do with discrimination. Selling and buying is by mutual agreement. I’m free, for instance, to refuse to sell my car to a black man even if he offers me more money for it than anyone else. The point is that I’m free to sell my things to whom I want to sell them. Only that guarantees free enterprise. So if I have (moral) objections to gays, I’m free to refuse to do business with them. And if I have (immoral) objections to black persons, I’m also free to refuse to do business with them. My motives don’t matter. It is my business and my money. I’m free to cause financial harm to myself for refusing to do business with certain persons. In selecting the persons I’m prepared to do business with, I’m not discriminating against anyone. If a person is refused as a client he can go to another shop.

Posted by LeeH on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 8:48 PM (EST):

I find it so ironic that the people that are so adamant about intolerance are the most intolerant of all. The claim that we are forcing religion on our them is getting old. What are they doing to us but forcing their non-religion on us.

Posted by patrick oconnor on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 8:19 PM (EST):

In times of universal deceit to tell the truth becomes a revolutionary act! Orsen wells. Gays are the new bullies on the block!

Posted by carmenva on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 8:10 PM (EST):

this homosexual who only wanted to sell flowers for Jesus. I think thats wonderful. Jesus loves you. he died for your sin. we are all sinners. so why don’t you go justify your life style to him.

Posted by Anon on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 7:30 PM (EST):

Jerry,

Your words show that you reject moral truth. You want the tyranny of relativism. You claim persecution when all you have to do is go elsewhere to buy flowers for the immoral wedding. By bother some nice woman with you peculiar ideology? You think people view you as moral and decent?

Posted by Robert on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 5:50 PM (EST):

I look at the USCCB website and what I see is “social justice” over and over again. It is time for them to tackle the moral issues of the day with a single clear voice. Clarity of thought. Integrity of action.

Posted by Robert on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 5:48 PM (EST):

It is time for the Church leadership to stand up and speak up.
“Be not afraid” is what I hear on Sunday. Where are they?

Posted by Jerry on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 5:36 PM (EST):

Ah, yes, us evil, nasty gays are enjoying beating up little old ladies who only want to sell flowers for Jesus. How cruel of us.

Let’s see. For eons in this country, our kind were berated and persecuted, arrested and thrown into paddy wagons, names spread all over, jobs taken away, careers ruined, homes lost. How “moral,” eh?

Finally, the tables have turned. The majority now recognize us as decent, moral people, many of whom want to get married (and now legally can, and it’s spreading everywhere, so too bad for you) and live quiet, peaceful lives being productive members of society. People can no longer use the excuse that their religion allows them to practice bigotry and discrimination. If you want to own and operate a public business, you have to abide by the laws and not discriminate against anyone, including in those ever-increasing areas where sexual orientation has correctly joined the ranks of race, color, ethnicity, sex and even - yes - creed, among others.

You had your era of foisting your religiosity on others. You got everything you wanted. Now your religiosity does not determine the hierarchical rights of equal protection under the law. Don’t want to cater to customers because of what they are in your public business because your religion says you can’t? Then make your choice: either make a living by being an American, or end up with nothing by being a religionist. We’ve had to put up with you people since time immemorial; now the shoe’s on the other foot. You persecuted people because of what they are - how dare you claim persecution because you can’t use your religion to continue doing that?

Flower-shop granny is not being persecuted because of her religion; she’s being told to follow the law with her business or shut her doors. I hope she loses a bundle. No one is telling her she can’t appease her god in her private life - we’ll support her in that. When she wants to take it into the public realm, she can’t use the excuse that her god won’t let her do business with people she doesn’t like. This is America. If a florist won’t cater to a mixed-race couple because his/her religion finds it going against his/her god, we don’t allow that. We make them do it or else they lose everything and let their god sort it out.

By the way, I have a friend who’s a Catholic priest. He went to a florist for some event and the florist was one of those fundie bible types and said his religion wouldn’t allow him to cater to a Catholic church because it was “pagan” and not Christian. My friend contacted government authorities (as he should) and brought the heavy hand of the law down on this bible thumper. When the florist found out that, according to state and federal law, he would either have to fill the order or lose his business, he caved. Oh, my, was he being “persecuted?” He was taught a lesson in American ideals. This “lady” needs to be taught the same lesson.

Posted by Lorenzo on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 5:25 PM (EST):

There are many florists in Washington state. Find another one and stop trying to force people to do what their consciences tell them they should not. This is nothing more than bullying sanctioned by the Government.

Posted by frjimt on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 5:16 PM (EST):

welcome to the new ‘tryanny’ that the left has cried about for so long….. and Jesus wept…

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.